In deference to my readers, today’s question is presented without position or opinion.
Is a dark skinned man that is shot by a light-skinned man more valuable than a dark skinned man that is shot by a dark skinned man?
Throughout the Lions share of last few days, America has been debating the “pros and cons” of the conflict between a young man by the name of Michael Brown and a Ferguson, Missouri police officer.
As it is and has been for some time now, my signature to sign off daily with the words…
“Truth forges understanding, I’ll be back tomorrow.”
In framing today’s question, I purposely and with considered fore-thought, “chose my wording very carefully.”
I chose the words (dark skinned man), and (light-skinned man), particularly because the mainstream media never gets it right when they refer to a (dark skinned man), as a “black man,” and a (light skinned man), as a “white man.”
Although I (do not) presently own a pair of “white shoes,” I do currently own a pair of “black shoes” and a pair of “brown shoes.”
Michael Brown, (by correct nomenclature), was not a “black” man, nor is the Ferguson police officer a “white” man.
Michael Brown, (properly identified) was a brown man, while the Ferguson police officer, (with a skin tone much more difficult to describe), could be categorized as an individual with hues ranging through the scales of pink, tan and yellow.
One last “tid-bit” to ponder during your pursuit to answer my question, during the same time period last week, twenty-six (dark skinned individuals), were shot by other (dark skinned individuals) in the city of Chicago, not one of which drew the attention of Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or the Nation.
Truth forges understanding, I’ll be back tomorrow.